I'm not sure this is much of an improvement. It does illustrate,
however, the desire to couch the concepts in terms that each is
already comfortable with. Nearly every set of terms which come from an
existing system will have baggage which doesn't map appropriately. Not
that the "sparse multidimens
Guys, this is beginning to sound like MUMPS!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUMPS
In MUMPS, all variables are sparse, multidimensional arrays, which can be
stored to disk.
It is an arcane, and archaic, language (does anyone but me remember it?),
but it has been used successfully for years. Maybe we
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Mike Malone wrote:
>
> The upshot is, the Cassandra data model would go from being "it's a nested
> dictionary, just kidding no it's not!" to being "it's a nested dictionary,
> for serious." Again, these are all just ideas... but I think this
> simplified
> data m
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Vijay wrote:
> I would rather be interested in Tree type structure where supercolumns have
> supercolumns in it. you dont need to compare all the columns to find a
> set of columns and will also reduce the bytes transfered for separator, at
> least string conca
10 1:31pm
To: u...@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: Is SuperColumn necessary?
Follow-up from last weeks discussion, I've been playing around with a simple
column comparator for composite column names that I put up on github. I'd
be interested to hear what people think of this approach.
